RE: Metall Schablone

I am disabled and on low income. I had someone recommend your site.I am trying to burn wooden spoons.I am trying to find simple pictures or cartoons to make Christmas presents. Can anyone help or send me a site? Thank you

own streetstyle:

gallery@orangeicebear.at

Aeroart Stencil Romania

The online magazine Aeroart has recently launchet it\\\'s third number dedicated to the stencil movement in Romania. It contains picture from galeries such as Stencil Exhibition,A-camp but also works done by The Orion, Coate Goale, Otaku and many more\r\nIn case you want to promote this number on your web-page, there is a link of the magazine in english further down this page. \r\n\r\nThank you\r\n\r\nhttp://rapidshare.com/files/162919904/REVISTA_AEROART_NR_3.2008-ENGLISH_VERSION.rar

designer

RE: designer

Hi, SO SO SO excited to find your blog. I have been wtnaing to try stencilling for ages but couldn\'t come at all the screen, squeegie etc that you need. Sorry to be so daft but what exactly is freezer paper? Is it non-stick baking paper? Is it from the supermarket or is it a special crafty thing? Thanks so muchMichelle the.winsons@bigpond.com

stencil-shirt

arnie packts net....

RE: arnie packts net....

Wow, I love your giraffe! Two tone too.. I\'m so imperssed! Oh, and in reply to your comment on frogspawn sago - while on \"taste sensation\" mission a little while ago, I *did* find a frog oviduct and red bean dessert in my local asian grocer!! So gross!Thanks for dropping by ,-)

RE: arnie packts net....

stenciled shortfilm

"schnellschuss" - this animated shortfilm shows a short daily-life-scene. The production of this film led the 2 artists Reinhold Bidner and Stefan Mittlboeck-Jungwirth to numerous flats and houses in Austria (and a few in Germany, Netherlands & Ireland) where, with the aid of stencils, they sprayed one or two still frames of the movie on a wall that was chosen by the inhabitant. The sprayed stencils were once again photographed, these pictures were stringed together to the final movie.
>> http://www.servus.at/subcute/schnellschuss.htm

new comer

hi all, i just uploaded some of my very first stencils, i only started about a week ago, but i love it already, i havent been out and about spraying any of them yet, but have a look and let me know wot u all think, much appreciated, and if u have any tips 4 me, they would be welcome, peace out all.

art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

so...
"this site is only for stencil graffitti"? no shit.
Sounds like discrimination if you ask me. Trendy, stupid, discrimination. Going backwards to enclosed classic standards for categorizing art by its pure tecnique is an all-cool-neofascist way to call yourselves "artists". While a real artist would be breaking boundaries all around you are still drawing borders to put a label on.

RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

To answer your question: Yes, this site is only for stencil graffiti.
Now to your angry remarks about categorizing: What\'s the point?
A Turtle is still a Turtle although it is an animal.
Feel free to drop your agitations somewhere else.

RE:

RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?
RE: \"art\\\'s \\\"cool\\\" fascism?\"

So Juan
maybe you should complain on a site for beagle dogs, that the don\'t show any german shepards?! Those all-caring-neofacist-beagle-owners. While people who really love dogs would break the boundaries of natural diversity all around. Thanx for your revolutionary, open-minded insight. It makes me speechless.

RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

Hey stupid toy, you are the only facist here, how said over all stencils there are a part off Neofacist, how do you want to now this? Only why do you think this is the only specialized side ?
whats with freestyle,punk, crust ,HC,green,SPÖ. think befor you post some shit, idiot.

RE:

Melbourne & Sydney Stencil Festival 06

MELBOURNE & SYDNEY STENCIL FESTIVAL

The preparations and planing for this years Stencil Festival are in full swing. This year we will not only celebrate stencil art in Melbourne but for the first time also stage a Stencil Festival in Sydney!

In Melbourne the festival has moved from North Melbourne to the vibrant cultural hub of Fitzroy and will be held at the Rose St. Artist Market (60 Rose St.) for five days from Thursday 18 to Monday 22 May 2006.
In Sydney the Pine Street Creative Arts Centre (64 Pine St.) in the inner city suburb of Chippendale will host the first Sydney Stencil Festival from Thursday 1 to Monday 5 June 2006.

We are calling now for applications of artists who wish to participate in this years festivals. Please download the application form from:
http://pinxit.spymac.com/call_for_application.pdf
Please feel free to forward the application form to your friends, colleagues and contacts.

Additionally we will hold the new 'Young Artists Award' this year. The award is open for everyone who does not consider him-/herself as a professional artist and has not been in the 'art business' for more than five years. There is no age limit.
We are still working on the terms and conditions for the award and couldn't allocate the prices yet, but there will be a 1. and 2. jury price plus a audience price. Details will follow soon.

Here are a few confirmed facts for those who consider submitting art into the 'Young Artist Award' and would like to start working on their piece:
- Subject of competition: censorship
(the interpretation of the competitions subject is all up to you)
- Artworks can be no larger than 60x60 cm
(larger works will be disqualified and not presented in the festivals)
- All works will be for sale and will be subject to 30% commission

Like in the previous years the Stencil Festival will not only present more exciting art than you can shake a stick at, but also attract a diverse audience with special events like opening party, book launch, workshops and live demonstrations, film night, charity auction etc

On our soon to be re-launched website www.stencilfestival.com you will find more detailed information on the program closer to the events.

Call for stencil art - get published for free

RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

Wow - that looks fantastic! You must be rlaely pleased with how it turned out. I rlaely like the design and the colours that you have used.I haven\'t yet tried stencilling onto a knit, so I think the tip about using a sponge sounds good. (I\'ve been using a paint brush on the weave fabric). I must head off and get myself some of that textile medium you have been using ... I think it will be a bit cheaper than the Speedball ink I have been using and would allow me to mix your own colours. Nice!Can\'t wait to see your two-toned stencil next week!

RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

RE:

Love it!!!! I got here from Craft Gossip I am inspired by so many crieatve blogs! I just started a new one yesterday about our adventures in selling the house and going on the road in our RV I hope mine can become as good as yours

RE:
danke

Question

I am trying to see if there are any fonts or locations were i can download spray spots to use in some of my designs, Are there any? or do you usually paint a piece of paper and scan it. That is what I have been doing. Thanks

RE: montana cans
come on

hey LOVER what´s the fuck wrong with you?
If nobody should make stencils except of Banksy, why you´r keeping writing on?
I´m trying to order cans over the 4season shop here in Linz, so that the local scene is able to stop beeing addictive to, for example Graz, Passau or Vienna!
P.S.
I made the GAGA stencils "FUCK fAKE LOVER"!!

RE:
come on

..really liked that stencil, and i really can understand why you hat that tag, cause i also think it's pretty ugly and really sucks. the thing is that when i started to write, it was more because of boredom, when walking around alone, unfortunately nothing about style, like the tcs,.. stuff, which i really like. blah blah...
i also never said that nobody should make stencils except banksy, this was just a wrong interpretation of somebody there. but it would be a hard way to explain the thing here, if still angry bout that, write mail or just have a talk, or whatever.

RE:
JUST GO TO HELL LOVER

From my point of view, you´r a silly TOY.
You´re saying you like the "FUCKFAKELOVER" stencil, you´ve got no flavour, this stencil sucks, cause it was made in about 2 minutes, so take you´r dirty thung out of my ass and pray, that nobody of us is busting you!
LOVER SUCKS!

RE:
HELL AIN'T A BAD PLACE TO BE

ok let's leave the relation between intelligence and sarcasm, or the motivation to write threads in an unmanageable language behind, and let's answer your well verbalized circumstance once more.
we both agree in the "suck factor" of lover writings. in conclusion i think, regardless you prefer still to fuck around, maybe caused by a lack of inspiration, boredom or whatever, i would like to define this replything as a pure waste of time. you don't have to come a long with me, nor i do. i don't want to belong to you, nor you do. even i cant remember to find myself scrambling in your ass. maybe the major thing is that we fit so perfect together that we should try the flower-bee game.

Nice works

Ducth Stencil Style Master

I think I have the biggest stencil collection in the world, as I am doing over 30 years now.
From the Old School on boats, trains, cars, airplanes, walls, fashion, paintings and paper.
And digital, check my site www.kaagman.nl

RE: Ducth Stencil Style Master
deeef

Hugo Kaagman

You guys should invite "dutch master" Hugo Kaagman (http://www.kaagman.nl) from Amsterdam to submit some of his work.
He has been using this technique for over 30 years and has become a famous artist. His work is awesome. Check it out.

RE: wes benutzt ihr?

RE: wes benutzt ihr?

RE:

Christine Love what you have done with this piece. The Krylon on the hardware is one of my fatriove colors! Amazing job very pretty! Thanks so much for linking up to The Sunday showcase party I have featured this today. Stop by and grab a featured button if you like. Hope you have a wonderful week ~ Stephanie Lynn

RE: wes benutzt ihr?

RE:

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.